'It's-not-enough, do-more' mantra keeps coming back, in one form or the other. This time it is the New York Times that has tried to build the case that in return for the roughly $1 billion Pakistan receives every year its counter-terrorism performance in areas along the border with Afghanistan falls far short of American expectation.
The newspaper, citing a study, said since 9/11, roughly $10 billion were sent to Pakistan, out of which $5.6 billion were reimbursed for military operations against al Qaeda and Taliban. But not only that Pakistan has of late slashed patrolling in the troubled areas there are instances when Pakistani security forces shot at the Afghan troops to ease pressure on the Taliban, the paper claimed.
Even Afghan posts have been fired upon by Pakistani security forces, the report further says. It quotes "American military officials in the region" who recommended that money be tied to Pakistan's performance in pursuing al Qaeda and "keeping the Taliban from gaining a haven from which to attack the government of Afghanistan".
The Bush Administration is, however, reluctant to consider any proposal to make imbursements operation-specific, because it is "fearful of cutting off the cash or linking it to performance for fear of further destabilising Musharraf, who is facing the biggest challenges to his rule since he took power in 1999". US National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's spokesman says, "Pakistan's cooperation is very important in the global war on terror and for our operations in Afghanistan.
"Our investments in that partnership have paid off over time, from increased information sharing to kills and captures of key terrorist operatives. But there is more work to be done, the Pakistanis know that, and we are engaged with the Musharraf government to ramp up the fight". In so many words, the report talks of 80 million dollars that on average are paid to Pakistan's military establishment every month. That money, Pakistan ambassador to Washington Mahmud Ali Durrani is reported to have assured the newspaper, is being rightly spent on "fuel, munitions and wear and tear of military equipment".
To anyone who insists that Pakistan is fighting the al Qaeda or Taliban militants in line with its own conviction and commitment, and not for dollars, the New York Times report is nothing but a slap across the face. You may have lost some 700 troops in fighting the Pakistani Taliban and foreigners in the tribal highland; you may have been accused of killing 80-plus students of a seminary in Bajaur; and you may be paying in blood elsewhere in the country in retaliatory attacks, but the United States' one of the most prestigious newspapers says all of it is for the dollar.
Why should the US government pay you "despite new evidence that the Pakistani military is often looking the other way when Taliban fighters retreat across the border into Pakistan, ignoring calls from American spotters to intercept them". But still more significant is the position taken by the Bush Administration that cutting off the cash or linking it to performance would undermine the strength of President Musharraf, which Washington will not do.
Let Americans think and do what they like. Let them fight out the al Qaeda and Taliban with or without Pakistan support. We will have no quarrel with them over it, so long as they let Pakistani think and do what they find to be best in their supreme national interest. Pakistan is not a mercenary army. Its fighting missions should be determined by the people of Pakistan and not dictated by outsiders. And, hopefully, President Musharraf's strength is rooted in Pakistan and not in the United States. Of course, Pakistan defence needs assistance from other countries, but not the dollars that are tainted with unreasonable and unacceptable conditions.